Can public debt harm social development? Evidence from the Asian-Pacific region

Information
Title: Can public debt harm social development? Evidence from the Asian-Pacific region
Issue: Vol. 13, No 2, 2020
Published date: 06-2020 (print) / 06-2020 (online)
Journal: Journal of International Studies
ISSN: 2071-8330, eISSN: 2306-3483
Authors: Le Thanh Tung
Ho Chi Minh City Open University
Keywords: public debt, GDP per capita, domestic investment, poverty, inequality, Gini, social development, Asia-Pacific region
DOI: 10.14254/2071-8330.2020/13-2/4
DOAJ: https://doaj.org/article/4aa75bed1ccd462587a665c8c9a3ff09
Language: English
Pages: 48-61 (14)
JEL classification: F34, H63
Website: https://www.jois.eu/?602,en_can-public-debt-harm-social-development-evidence-from-the-asian-pacific-region
File https://www.jois.eu/files/4_766_Tung.pdf
Licenses:
Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the effect of public debt on some social development indicators with a sample including 17 developing and emerging countries in the Asia-Pacific region over the period of 1980-2018. The panel regression method is applied with both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Our study finds that public debt has a negative impact on some main social development indicators of the economies. More specifically, public debt has a negative and significant effect on the growth rate of GDP per capita. Public debt also has a negative impact on domestic investment, however, the coefficients are not statistically significant. Besides, public debt has a positive and significant impact on the poverty rate. Although public debt has a negative impact on inequality, it seems that all income groups are poorer, so the reduction of inequality (denoted by the Gini index) is understandable. Finally, the panel Granger causal test points out that high rate of poverty seems to be a good reason to persuade governments to borrow more in the future. Following our result, policy makers need to be more careful when they use public debt as a common tool to support economic activities in the future.

Bibliography

1. Akram, N. (2016). Public debt and pro-poor economic growth evidence from South Asian countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 746-757. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2016.1197550

2. Arawatari, R. & Tetsuo Ono, T. (2017). Inequality and public debt: A positive analysis. Review of International Economics , 25(2), 1155-1173. doi: 10.1111/roie.12299

3. Asian Development Bank (2017). Asian Economic Integration Report 2017. Manila, Phillippines.

4. Baglan, D., & Yoldas, E. (2013). Government debt and macroeconomic activity: a predictive analysis for advanced economies. Federal Reserve Board Discussion Series 2013-05. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2976702

5. Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In: B. Baltagi (Ed). Advances in Econometrics: Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, JAI Press, Amsterdam, Vol. 15, pp. 161–178.

6. Bua, G., Pradelli, J., & Presbitero, A. F. (2014). Domestic public debt in Low-Income Countries: Trends and structure. Review of Development Finance, 4(1), 1–19.doi:10.1016/j.rdf.2014.02.002.

7. Burhanudin, M. D., Muda, R., Nathan, S. B., & Arshad, R. (2017). Real effects of government debt on sustainable economic growth in Malaysia. Journal of International Studies, 10(3), 161-172. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-3/12

8. Correia, L., & Martins, P. (2019). The European crisis: Analysis of the macroeconomic imbalances in the rescued euro area countries. Journal of International Studies, 12(2), 22-45. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2019/12-2/2

9. Erdil, E., & Yetkiner, I. H. (2009). The Granger-causality between health care expenditure and output: a panel data approach. Applied Economics, 41(4), 511-518. doi: 10.1080/00036840601019083

10. Furceri, D., & Zdzienicka, A. (2012). How costly are debt crises?. Journal of International Money and Finance, 31(4), 726–742. doi:10.1016/j.jimonfin.2012.01.012

11. Gaspar, V., Ture, E., & Ralyea, J. (2019). Three charts that explain - and could help solve - our global debt problem, World Economics Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/high-debt-hampers-countries-response-to-a-fast-changing-glob

12. Granger, C.W.J. (1988). Some recent developments in a concept of causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39 (1–2), pp.199–211. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(88)90045-0

13. Jayaraman, T. K., & Lau, E. (2009). Does external debt lead to economic growth in Pacific island countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 31(2), 272-288. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2008.05.001

14. Insukindro, I. (2018). The effect of twin shock on fiscal sustainability in Indonesia. Economics & Sociology, 11(1), 75-84. doi. 10.14254/2071- 789X.2018/11-1/5

15. Hansen, H., & Rand, J. (2006). On the Causal Links Between FDI and Growth in Developing Countries. The World Economy, 29(1), 21-41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00756.x

16. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271. doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1913827

17. Hurlin, C., & Venet, B. (2001). Granger Causality Tests in Panel Data Models with Fixed Coefficients. Working Paper Eurisco 2001-09, University of Paris Dauphine.

18. Im, K. S., Perasan, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7

19. Kusairi, S., Maulina, V., & Margaretha, F. (2019). Public debt and private consumption in Asia Pacific countries: Is there evidence for Ricardian equivalence?. Journal of International Studies, 12(1), 50-64. doi:10.14254/2071- 8330.2019/12-1/3

20. Kumar, M., & Woo, J. (2010). Public debt and growth. IMF working papers, 1-47. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10174.pdf

21. Levin, A., Lin C. F., & Chu, C. (2002). Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties. The Review of Financial Studies, 108(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7

22. Lof, M., & Malinen, T. (2014). Does sovereign debt weaken economic growth? A panel VAR analysis. Economics Letters, 122(3), 403-407. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.12.037

23. Lopes da Veiga, J. A., Ferreira-Lopes, A., & Sequeira, T. N. (2016). Public debt, economic growth, and inflation in African economies. South African Journal of Economics, 84(2), 294–322. doi: 10.1111/saje.12104

24. Ncanywa, T., & Masoga, M. M. (2018). Can public debt stimulate public investment and economic growth in South Africa?. Cogent Economics & Finance, 6(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/23322039.2018.1516483

25. Panizza, U., & Presbitero, A. F. (2014). Public debt and economic growth: is there a causal effect?. Journal of Macroeconomics, 41, 21-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2014.03.009

26. Mendonça, H. F., & Tiberto, B. P. (2014). Public debt and social security: Level of formality matters. Economic Modelling, 42, 490–507. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.030

27. Salti, N. (2015). Income inequality and the composition of public debt. Journal of Economic Studies, 42(5), 821-837. doi: 10.1108/JES-01-2014-0015

28. Smith, S. (2019). 11 ways Asia-Pacific will dominate the 21st century. Savills, 02, 26-29.

29. Töngür, Ü., & Elveren, A. Y. (2014). Deunionization and pay inequality in OECD Countries: A panel Granger causality approach. Economic Modelling, 38(C), 417-425. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2014.01.014

30. Tung, L. T. (2018a). Impact of remittance inflows on trade balance in developing countries. Economics and Sociology, 11(4), 80-95. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11- 4/5

31. Tung, L. T. (2018b). The effect of fiscal deficit on economic growth in an emerging economy: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of International Studies, 11(3), 191-203. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-3/16

32. World Bank. (2019). World Development Indicators online database (Octorber 2019). Washington, DC. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator